Analyst Coverage and Corporate ESG Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report: Analyst coverage and corporate ESG performance
1. Summary
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between analyst coverage and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance The authors based on the data of Chinese A-share listed firms from 2011 to 2021. They employed the Bloomberg ESG rating data, utilized data obtained from Wind database and Chinese CSMAR database and used regression analysis and a series of endogeneity and robustness checks. The authors documented several interesting results and indicated their implications.
2. Main Comments and Suggestions
I consider that the idea is interesting and worth doing research. The research topic is well explained as concerns its necessity and it fills a gap in the existing literature.
I consider that the paper is well organized and presents a reasonable knowledge of the literature. However, I suggest to indicate at the end of the introduction the reminder of the paper.
The methodological framework is valid for the research topic and well explained.
The results are presented clearly. However, the authors do not comment on the results in the context of other studies. Are the results consistent/inconsistent with results of other research? The authors need to discuss the results more deeply in reference to previous research, if it's possible.
The paper makes a useful contribution to the literature and practice. However, authors should clearly state their contributions to agency theory.
3. Minor Comments and Suggestions
Line #246: I suggest clarifying that this is Hypothesis 1a.
Thank you for such an interesting article.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewers for your comments and have made the necessary changes in response to them. We are confident that the manuscript has improved as a result of these revisions, and we have included our replies to the reviewer's comments below. We hope you find our revisions satisfactory and responsive to the reviewer's suggestions.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors aim to discuss the relationship between analyst coverage and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) using the data from China listed firms from 2011 to 2021. The paper is expected to enrich existing studies on the determinant of corporate ESG performance and highlights the role analysts play in shaping corporate non-financial behavior and promoting corporate sustainable development. It is found that financial analyst coverage improves corporate ESG performance, especially the E and S dimensions. The structure of the article is logical and coherent, supported by some relevant literature.
However, I would suggest author revise the paper for the following reasons:
- Abstract: the abstract needs revisions
The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.
- Research questions and originality.
Please articulate Research questions and originality further, clarifying how your article adds new knowledge to the body of knowledge that already exists in a research area.
- Methodology
The authors need to offer a concrete research framework. A diagram might be helpful.
4. Data
The authors claim we use the Chinese A-share listed firms from 2011 to 2020 (2021) interchangeably. Please clarify the data coverage.
5. The authors may want to recommend the future of the research.
I would recommend authors proofread the article by a professional proof-reader.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewers for your comments and have made the necessary changes in response to them. We are confident that the manuscript has improved as a result of these revisions, and we have included our replies to the reviewer's comments below. We hope you find our revisions satisfactory and responsive to the reviewer's suggestions. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Refer to my comments on the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
there are few minor language mistakes that require to be corrected.
refer to the attached file for some examples
Author Response
We appreciate you for your comments and have made the necessary changes in response to them, we have revised one by one. We are confident that the manuscript has improved as a result of these revisions, and we have included our replies to the reviewer's comments below. We hope you find our revisions satisfactory and responsive to the reviewer's suggestions.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the comments provided, resulting in a level of revision for the article that I find satisfactory. I am pleased to recommend its acceptance.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am impressed by your thorough and meticulous attention to the comments raised during the first revision of the manuscript. Your commitment to enhancing the manuscript's quality and addressing the suggestions is commendable.
Good Luck
Acceptable
